The pension dispute that delayed former Scott Twp. police chief James Romano’s sentencing has been in limbo for months because no one followed up with a state agency.

Bernard Brown, one of Mr. Romano’s attorneys, said he contacted the State Employees’ Retirement System in November to inquire if it had the authority to decide Mr. Romano’s pension eligibility. He and his co-counsel, Frank Ruggiero, were fairly confident it did not because Mr. Romano was not a state employee, but Mr. Brown said an SERS official advised him he could not answer that question until Mr. Romano reached the age that he could apply for a pension, which is seven years from now.

Over the next six months, the defense and attorneys from the attorney general’s office appeared in court several times to debate if Mr. Romano could be sentenced absent a pension decision. None of the attorneys contacted SERS in the interim to ask again if it could make a final determination of the agency’s authority — the key issue that has held up sentencing because the plea deal allows Mr. Romano to withdraw his plea if his pension is in peril.

In an email to The Times-Tribune on Tuesday, Pamela Hile, spokeswoman for SERS, confirmed the agency has no involvement in Mr. Romano’s pension because he was a municipal employee, therefore his pension eligibility is determined by the municipality or the administrator of its pension plan. Ms. Hile noted anyone could obtain that information by filing a Right to Know Law request to inquire if Mr. Romano was a state employee.

Court hearings on the matter focused on the debate over whether the attorney general’s office agreed Mr. Romano could withdraw his plea at any time — even years later — if there was an issue with his pension. Prosecutors said they did not agree to that, but a transcript of Mr. Romano’s plea hearing contradicts that statement.

Mr. Romano, who was accused of having sex with a witness in a case he was investigating, pleaded no contest on Nov. 12 to a charge of hindering prosecution before Senior Judge Harold Kane, who was specially appointed to hear the case. The deal calls for him to be sentenced to six months probation. His sentencing was postponed several times because of the pension dispute.

Mr. Ruggiero confirmed the sole issue holding up sentencing is an assurance that SERS can’t seek to forfeit Mr. Romano’s pension. He has already gotten confirmation the township won’t take any action. He said he knows Mr. Romano is not a member of SERS, but he has to confirm that agency does not have authority over municipal pensions.

“If they send us back something saying they have no authority, we can resolve it,” Mr. Ruggiero said.

Mr. Brown said he contacted SERS on Wednesday and was told to send a letter. The agency’s legal department will review the matter and issue a reply. As long as the agency confirms it has no jurisdiction, he believes Mr. Romano’s sentencing can be scheduled.

Asked why he did not seek that clarification sooner, Mr. Brown said he did not act because there remained a dispute over whether or not Mr. Romano’s plea would stand. That decision was not made until Monday, when Lackawanna County Judge Thomas Munley, who took over the case from Judge Kane, reluctantly approved the deal.

Carolyn Myers, spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said no one there sought information from SERS because their position was that the pension issue “was not within our jurisdiction or authority.”

“Why would it be our responsibility to reach out to SERS?” she asked.

A transcript of Mr. Romano’s plea hearing shows the pension issue was discussed at length. Several times Mr. Ruggiero affirmed Mr. Romano would be permitted to withdraw the plea if he did not get assurances his pension was safe, and that sentencing would be delayed until that decision was made. Deputy Attorney General Daniel Dye, who prosecuted the case, never objected to that provision.

The transcript shows there was no discussion on how long that ruling might take, and Mr. Dye did not make any inquiries regarding that issue.

Questioned if the attorney general’s office was aware at the time that the delay could be up to seven years, Ms. Myers did not specifically address the issue. She also did not specifically address a question of whether Attorney General Kathleen Kane believes errors were made in the case.

“The agreement between the court and the defendant is extremely unusual. Our attorneys handled this matter professionally and capably,” she said.

Contact the writer:

tbesecker@timesshamrock.com

We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.

Think you have the cutest pet in NEPA? Share a photo of your furry companion and you could win prizes from our sponsors! Deadline to submit an entry is March 19, and voting will take place from March 20-March 31.